Key Points: - The judgment analyzes whether Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty posts were properly declared equivalent in status to Cadre posts under Rule 9(1) and whether the absence of such equivalence declarations invalidates the appointments. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It discusses the requirement that equivalence must be determined by an objective assessment of the nature and responsibilities of the post, not merely by pay or rank, and that declarations of equivalence are mandatory where non-Cadre posts are appointed to Cadre officers. (!) (!) (!) - The case evaluates whether transfers of the Chief Secretary to lower or non-Cadre posts can be sustained under Articles 14 and 16, considering arbitrariness and mala fides, and clarifies the heavy burden of proving mala fides. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court rejects several grounds of mala fides and upholds that the transfers were not shown to be arbitrary or malicious based on the evidence presented. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It distinguishes between contemporaneous actions and later allegations of mala fides, emphasizing the need for credible, contemporaneous proof. (!) (!) - The Gazette and authenticated orders are examined to determine whether they reflected substantive equivalence and proper procedure, with emphasis on the exact language used in orders. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

How to determine whether a non-Cadre post is equivalent in status and responsibility to a Cadre post under Rule 9(1) of the IAS Pay Rules?

What is the validity of appointing a Cadre officer to non-Cadre posts without a proper declaration of equivalence and how does it relate to Articles 14 and 16?

What are the grounds and standards for evaluating mala fides and arbitrariness in transfers of a Chief Secretary within state administration?